Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 2040 (RAJ)

Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Champa

2021-10-27

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

body2021
ORDER 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company assailing the award passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner in claim petition under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 in favour of the claimants on account of death of the driver-Ram Hans who is stated to be driving the truck owned by one Munni Lal who is his real brother. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the employer-employee relationship has not been established and since he was a real brother of the owner of the truck, it cannot be said that he was employed as a driver and the story has been concocted. He further submits that the incident as submitted before the Commissioner in the claim petition cannot be said to be proved as no FIR was lodged with regard to the accident nor any document was produced of the treatment of the deceased nor post mortem report was produced. 2. Learned counsel further submits that the purpose of the truck having been sent for collecting grit/stones has also not been proved as there is no receipt of the Mining Document to show that the truck was carrying grit/stone. In cross-examination, the khalasi Pappu has stated that they were bringing the same concealingly and therefore, it appears to be a case of collusion for fraudulent claim and actually no accident can be said to have occurred resulting in death of the deceased. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants on the other hand submits that the present appeal is not maintainable as there is no substantial question of law involved in the present petition and the arguments raised are all questions of facts. He relies on Golla Rajanna and Others Versus Divisional Manager & Another reported in (2017) 1 SCC 45 , and North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Sujatha reported in (2019) 11 SCC 514 , in support of his submissions. He further relies on judgment passed by Madras High Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Branch Vs. Pad mini and Another : CM. A. No. 3638 of 2012 and M.P. No.l of 2012 to submit that there is no requirement of lodging of FIR in order to prove the accident. 4. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. 5. Ltd., Divisional Branch Vs. Pad mini and Another : CM. A. No. 3638 of 2012 and M.P. No.l of 2012 to submit that there is no requirement of lodging of FIR in order to prove the accident. 4. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. 5. In the cross-examination, wife of the deceased was examined on oath and in her cross-examination she has specifically mentioned that her husband was working as a driver and Murari Lal who was the owner of the truck was elder brother of the deceased-Ram Hans. She states that her husband and Murari Lal were living in the same house nearby each other. She states of her husband being in service, she does not possess any documentary evidence that she is illiterate. The khalasi Pappu has also come in evidence and states that he was khalasi of the truck and that when accident occurred Ram Hans was trying to get the punctur of the truck repaired when another truck crashed into it resulting in him getting injured and he was thereafter taken to the hospital by the khalasi where he succumbed to injuries. The fact of the accident and subsequent treatment at Mathura is being mentioned in the investigation report of the insurance claim investigator who is authorised officer of the Insurance Company. 6. The investigation report has been submitted by the appellants as Exhibit-Mi which mentions about such a fact having come to the knowledge of the investigator after conducting investigation and after having met the deceased wife, children and his mother. He has also stated that the relatives of the deceased were illiterate and as per them they had no knowledge of requirement of post-mortem or lodging of FIR. It is also stated that the owner of the truck Murari Lal was also real brother of the deceased Ram Hans. Thus, from the statements which have come on record, it is proved that an accident has taken place and the deceased suffered injuries which resulted in his death. The statement of the owner Murari Lal has also been recorded who has stated on oath adding cross-examination of the fact that the deceased was working as a driver with him on the truck. 7. The statement of the owner Murari Lal has also been recorded who has stated on oath adding cross-examination of the fact that the deceased was working as a driver with him on the truck. 7. Keeping in view the aforesaid statements, this Court finds that (a) accident stands proved (b) the owner admits of having employed the deceased as a driver (c) that the truck was duly insured (d) the investigating officer appointed by the insurance company does not deny in his report to the factum of accident or the employer employee relationship. 8. Keeping in view aforesaid, it cannot be said to be a case where there is a collusion of any kind or a fraudulent claim. In view thereof and considering that the findings of fact arrived at are not substantial question of law as held by Apex Court in case of North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (supra). This Court does not find any force in the present appeal. The judgment passed by the Commissioner dated 12.09.2012 under the Workmen Compensation Act whereby he has awarded compensation of Rs.4,15,960/- along with interest @12% per annum from the date of death, does not warrant any interference and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. 9. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.